|
|
|
ERA supports the fight for Indigenous people recognition ERA Onlus is trying to present itself as an association which supports indigenous peoples, working on two main issues: information and support for individuals and peoples needing an active cooperation ensuring the safeguard of their fundamental rights. Actually, these two themes are combined in our aim: work together to obtain visibility. The association is committed in a
research work, vital for information about specific, complex issues, involving
indigenous peoples and their intellectual, cultural, mainly
linguistic“property”. This “automatic” process is part of globalization's evolution, which we experience both in its positive and negative aspects. Globalization, together with the “sustainable development” idea, should protect the identities of peoples which rely on a balancing process between politics and economies of socialization and solidarity among different states. But, while trying to realize such a
big goal, both in terms of time and space, and based on a development model
established and governed by very few countries, we incur the risk of
forgetting cultural peculiarities, thus casting aside the preservation of
different thoughts, cultures and languages above all.
Congresso Mondiale sulla Comunicazione per lo Sviluppo (FAO, 25-27 ottobre 2006) World Congress for Communication Development (FAO, 25-27 Oct. 2006) On 25th, 26th and 27th of October, 2006, our association attended the WCCD (World Congress for Communication Development), held in Rome, at FAO main office. Some of us took part in meetings and debates, raising issues concerning the right for everybody to use their mother tongue in global communication, and the duty for every state to guarantee a communication respecting linguistic differences. To ensure a democratic communication, it is vital to preserve diversities. On October 26, the special session
dedicated to indigenous peoples was held: this meeting was strongly supported
by Mario Acunzo, FAO functionary for Communication and Development. 26 Ottobre 2006 FAO headquarter, Rome Congress “COMMUNICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT” (WCCD) Special Event: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES Green Room, 16:30-18:00
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND COMMUNICATION: FINDING A SOLUTION
The FAO, in association with other international and regional agencies and movements( CIDOB, ONPIA, UNPFII, IFAD, COICA), organized during WCCD a special meeting on indigenous peoples and their perception of communication. The attendees referred to this meeting as a “workshop”, a pragmatic start of a serious debate about the accessibility of mass media to indigenous peoples. This accessibility must be guaranteed, equal, independent and free. Condivision of space and spread of knowledge and information cannot exist if the persons concerned don't take part in it; no medium can be used for a successful communication between indigenous and not-indigenous world, unless it stops advantaging exclusively the latter.
The meeting was not attended by many people, but the few who participated were truly committed in finding a solution that could directly involve the peoples concerned.
One half of the 4000 languages that risk, according to UNESCO's statistics, to disappear before this century ends, are indigenous ones. The culture owned by every people recognized as (and aware to be) native is almost unique; the term “culture” is used to mean everything that lives in oral transmission, in their own traditional language, in brief, everything they are: nature, symbols, rituals, nonmaterial patrimony. All of this is part of their essence, impossible to summrize with the tecnicality of the present forms of communication. Any language, spoken by any people, brings culture with it: this is why everybody should be allowed to maintain it in use.
While trying to define “self-identification”, we “bump” into an important right that indigenous communities are trying to preserve: to remain attached to their land, the ancestral land of tradition, the story of a people who, without it, would feel abused and disheartened in its existence.
Talking about self-determination, we mean the indigenous request to be recognized as well-defined collective identities, with the same rights that belong to man; among these rights, the freedom to express themselves with every disposable medium, which must be provided by the state exalting the richness of all linguistic and cultural differences rather than trying to cancel them or sum them in one.
How much are Western societies aware of the fact that indigenous peoples must (and want to) be free in following their own traditions, without external interferences? Many say that indigenous claims are merely “folkloristic”: a ceremony that rejoins the dead with the living, with its symbolic dances and rituals, is seen as “folklore”, and its essence remains concealed. However, there are also people who can understand the whole worth of the cultural background that undermines every act and claim of the indigenous communities: people who feel as inadequate the “tools” used to preserve the indigenous environment, until its existence is viewed as a problem rather than an enrichment. Making an independent use of one's skills and communication mediums is becoming troublesome. Communication is ruled by a few dominating systems: the giants of IT and the multinational business companies hold in their hands the main TV and radio stations, and they establish the rules, without appearing to force anyone.
During the three days of WCCD, we saw a dichotomy between the communication system proposed by the Western societies and the one supported by regional communities: for the reasons we explained before, the former received more attention, even if the latter was more simple and intelligible, encouraging a more accessible communication. In the special meeting on indigenous people, the intent was to harmonize the different views, trying to find a common solution, maybe a more sustainable alternative. . The meeting was attended by many technical experts and some representatives of indigenous peoples and movements supporting the claims for recognition.
Mario Acunzo, FAO functionary involved in Communication for Development, was president and moderator of the meeting, having sustained and recommended the introduction of this special session in the WCCD.
Ignacio Prafil, Mapuche of Argentina, member of ONPIA (Organización de Naciones y Pueblos Indígenas en Argentina, www.onpia.org) and leader of an education project (TIC, Tecnologias de la Información y la Comunicación), opened the meeting by playing a traditional musical instrument of his people, and choosing to speak in mapdungun, the traditional language of Mapuche, for the first minutes of his speech. This was his way to espress his origins and identity. It can be also viewed as a challenge to the interpreters and attendees: Prafil decided to show how normal it could be, for him and for the public, to cross the limits of linguistic standardization. His act was a rivendication of his being Ignacio Prafil, or better Coike Pvrafilu: the public was ready to welcome and support it.
Maria Rosario Saravia, Segretaria del CIDOB (Confederación de Pueblos Indígenos de Bolivia, www.cidob-bo.org), even acknowledging the operativity of many movements supporting indigenous claims, wholly disapproved a system which permits and encourages a unilateral model of communication. No spread of information or communication can exist without a true consent from who is pointed to as the “case of the day”, then immediately forgotten and not allowed to talk. It's not fair, in her vision, that indigenous peoples are treated as if they were not capable to speak. Others pretend to speak on their behalf, while they are perfectly capable to express themselves without constraints, in their way, of course, a way that should be considered and respected.
Letting the indigenous peoples abstractly free to use communication mediums that can instead be concretely handled by them only with difficulty, and often not conceived to work in their language, is not the right way to encourage development. Imposing a given communication model means using a paternalistic approach; this does not help to pursue the first aim of sustainable communication: cooperation and reciprocity.
Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, UNPFII ( United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/ ) and representative of Philippines' indigenous peoples, spoke about “invisibility”, both in development and in communication. The imposition of communication models is against the fundamental rights and freedom of indigenous peoples, which are among the poorest in the world.
All the attendees took note of the efforts made in these years by UN to find a guarantee solution (from the confirmation of the second Decade for Indigenous Peoples, 2007, to the draft of Universal Declaration on Indigenous Peoples approved by the Council for Human Rights in June 2006; from the ILO convention 169/1989 to the Vienna Declaration on Development, 1993).
José Luis Aguirre, expert of communication for SECRAD (Servicio de Capacitacióen Radio y Autovisuales para el Desarollo, Università Cattolica Boliviana) underlined the importance of strongly sustaining the search for an equal communication that recognizes “cultural diversity”. Diversity is an opportunity for everyone to show his/her specificities.
The problem is to understand the relationship between the ones who rule communication and the ones who must submit to this rule. A dichotomy which would not exist, if there was true equality in the relationships among different peoples. The patterns on which today indigenous peoples establish their principles and identity must be taken into account the way they are, without attempting interpretations or distortions. In a framework of sustainable development, it is important not to underestimate the knowledge and culture that indigenous peoples carry with them.
Conference “Peoples Vanishing: Another Way to Make Wars” (November 27, 2006)
On November 27th, 2006, at Sala delle Colonne, Chamber of Deputies, our association held a conference in the framework of the Italian Cooperation Days (Giornate per la Cooperazione Italiana), sponsored by Italian Cooperation Office and Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The title chosen for the conference reflests ERA's position about endangered languages and peoples, and the culture that they express. The speakers were Giorgio Pagano, Secretary of ERA, Professor Maurizio Gnerre, ethonolinguistic at “Orientale” university of Naples, Professor Flavia Cuturi, anthropologist at “Orientale” university, Professor Stefania Giannini, headmaster of Foreign University of Perugia and Filipppo Soldi, film director. The disappearance of about 6000 languages was the main argument of the meeting. According to UNESCO, more than 90% of living languages will desappear by this century; thus, many people will lose their linguistic identity. Realizing the urgent need to assure everybody the free-thought right, all members at the meeting discussed about the disparity of free-thought right. “Freedom” does not only mean “free access to resources” but also “being free to use one’s mother tongue”. If this condition is denied, expression is impossible, mainly in places where bilinguism is not a concrete reality yet. Even where bilinguism is practised and encouraged, the language that’s not one’s own must be learned with great effort: while saying things in a foreign language, it’s pretty difficult to realize an effective, free and correct form of communication. Indigenous communities are bound to be affected more than others by the consequences of this process. Many people committed in this issue attended this conference. It helped to make clear, in an informal way, far from excessive technicalism and bureaucracy, the situation of the main part of immaterial assets. Italian Cooperation Days 2006, Forum for Solidarity During the Italian Cooperation Days 2006, ERA attended three of the four meetings held in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ building. Each one was about a specific issue: Millennium Goals and Struggle Against Poverty (November 14, 2006); Common Goods (November 28, 2006) and Higher Education (December 6, 2006). Three working groups have been organized subsequently, each one referring to one meeting. Our association took an active part in them, presenting three papers. The purpose of creating these working groups is to promote an active cooperation among the participants. Vice-Minister Sentinelli’s wish is that the attendes will keep on working on these issues even after the conclusion of the meeting. ERA contributed to the
working group on “Millennium Goals and Struggle Against Poverty” with a paper
containing studies and proposals about indigenous people and their cultural
and linguistic background, expressing the wish that their huge worth won’t be
underestimated in planning new development programmatic politics. WORKING GROUP “MILLENNIUM GOALS (2000-2015)”
“As a source of exchange, innovation and creativity, cultural diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature”. (UNESCO, Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, art. 1)
PREAMBLE ERA Onlus (Association for Linguistic Democracy), born in 1987 with the purpose of developing political projects and programs that allow any language to be treated the same way as others, in juridical terms, as long as they are all part of the world “linguistic eco-system”. Amongs its main aims, there is giving press and public opinion visibility to the poorest peoples in the world. “Linguistic democracy” means an attitude inspired to the principle of equality among peoples: it is important to respect cultural diversity (or better “variety”). Era has a particular concern in “indigenous realities”, one of the environments that risk to be affected by both the problems related to sustainable development and the ones dealing with the 8 Millennium Goals. In our approach, we try to make a clear distinction among collective and individual identities. Destroying collective environments, entire peoples, leads societies to a visible, inevitable decaying process. When this happens, people feel no more as they belong to a specific ethnic group: thus, in order to survive, they become part of that generic, progressively increasing number of what is called “world population”: this definition is often used to speak about the inhabitants of Earth, but it does certainly not permit to consider the peculiarities of its components, who then become just units, bodies with no mind or identity. We believe that there is an indissoluble bond between natural and cultural environment The transmission of knowledge from a generation to another must happen in the local languages, thus giving value to the immaterial heritage (language, culture, customs) of a people. This process allows a longer-lasting spread of knowledge, helping people to remain aware of their “belonging” condition. In this framework, the use of local languages can help to be perceived as respectful and considering all identities equally important, so that in loco preservation and development politics can be seen in a more positive way. Peoples find in their environment and language their reason to live as communities, and this is one of the main features that make them proud of being or became capable to read and write.
More than one third of the 900 millions people who live in rural areas belong to indigenous peoples, which represent 75% of the people referred to as “extremely poor”. The communities living in the world are today almost 5000, and the UN member states which lie on their territories are 70. Among the official definitions adopted by UN for indigenous peoples we chose to consider Ecuadorian ambassador Josè Martinez-Cobo’s definition, given in 1987: “the ones who constitute the non-dominating fields of society, determined upon preserving, developing and transmitting their ancestors’ territories and their ethnic identity to the future generations, as the core of their existence as peoples, in compliance with their cultural systems, social institutions and juridical systems.” Indigenous peoples therefore represent a “minority number” within the countries in which they live. Unlike other minorities, however, they have their peculiar linguistic and cultural identity. A report made by the Support Group of the UN Agency for Indigenous Issues in 2005 pointed out that indigenous peoples are even farther from reaching the bare minimum of Millennium Goals than other disadvantaged sectors of the disadvantaged world population. It goes on suggesting to give more attention to the peculiarities of indigenous peoples’ situation in defining the Millennium Goals.
Consdered that, we think that it is necessary to change our point of view about the terms “sustainable development” and “interaction” and to shape a less pernicious kind of sustainability, investing more on decentration, really understanding the needs of who it tries to help.
Out of the eight objectives, ERA focused on three: - Achieve a universal primary education system (number 2) - Ensure environmental sustainability (number 7) - Build a global partnership for development (number 8).
REFLECTIONS It is necessary to figure out an order in which goals must be considered and pursued; ERA Onlus tried to work on the three goals mentioned before, bearing in mind the close relationship among them and the solutions to propose. Maybe we should repeat that there is an indissoluble bond between natural and cultural environment, understood by indigenous peoples more than others, because they feel closely attached to their land. Land does not only provide mathematically calculable, concretely useful resources, but is also a space containing a huge biological variety, that could not be replaced once it disappears. Variety and its richness, and traditional “roots”, are common to natural and cultural-linguistic environment. Realizing both an effective universal primary education system and a truly sustainable development is only possible if there is an equal and neutral relationship among all the peoples concerned. The role of traditional practices, expressed for the most part in local languages, is vital for concrete preservation of places to live, nature and ecosystem. Indigenous languages run the risk to become some kind of “creole” because of external influences. When a dominant language starts influencing an indigenous one, in an attempt to dominate it, specific knowledge and skills of the latter are lost. Assuring a basic education for all, which should arrive at least to the three first levels of primary school, is a necessary goal to achieve for indigenous peoples too. In which way were the programs addressed to children thought, set and realized? We consider that they are excessively inspired to the “anglo-global” education system. Indigenous communities see education as a way out poverty: it is pretty rare that they question if a given education programme is oriented to preserving their culture and traditions. Education can be viewed in fact as a way to overcome poverty, but an “universal”, standardized education can marginalize and ostracize indigenous realities and values rather than help to maintain their identity. In focusing on the capital importance of respecting cultural identities of ALL entities which take part in the development programmes, we think about a teaching system based on bilinguism, the second language being the indigenous one: but this suggestion is not sufficient to change a system that has been set in advance, in which the majority's values are exalted, to disadvantage of the minority's ones. Studying the Millennium Goals documents, it is not clear if there are specific development programmes addressed particularly to indigenous peoples. Universality principle should be translated within the education field in a principle of absolute respect of individual integrity: every person has the right to perceive herself as part of a specific group/community, not necessarily of a state. During childhood, we acquire what can be referred to as “self-awareness”: school is one of the places where this feelings is shaped. But childhood is also the period during which discrimination processes can start, and it is important to suppress them in the very moment they begin. Feeling “different”, “less” than other children, makes the child reject his/her family customs and traditions, even if he/she keeps on respecting them in family life. Difference should be balanced instead, and the value and potential carried by indigenous tradition, important also for communities not directly involved in them, should be exalted. The most common reaction to discrimination is that individuals and communities, to achieve better living standards, feel compelled to adapt to the new education system, which advantages the official language of the country where they live as a minority group and minimizes their traditions. If a primary education system is adopted, which creates strong bases for the spread of “anglobalization” (rather than just “globalization”) towards teaching only dominating languages, first of all English, it is likely that, in the future, an indigenous, after completing his/her studies, will not return to the lands of his/her ancestors, because he/she will consider impossible to build any kind of future there. National institutions often reject indigenous communities' claims for a bilingual and multicultural education system, because of the fact that there is no money to finance it: this kind of excuse should not be accepted.
|
|
|
|
|